Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Flickr as an Interior Decorating Tool

Update | 7:40 p.m.Updates to this post address the controversy surrounding the use and reuse of other people’s content on the Internet.

Update | June 26 6:55 p.m. We’ve published a follow-up post addressing the legal and ethical issues raised by readers. We welcome your feedback on that post. Comments on this one are now closed.

Update | June 29 11:21 p.m.To address questions raised by the original, clarified that images found online for blog posts are, in keeping with the policy of The New York Times, used only if permission is granted by the rights holder.

Flickr has more than 40 million users uploading photos on a regular basis. At last count, there were 3.5 billion photos and videos to view. While many of us use Flickr to share photos with friends (and occasionally with strangers), you may not have realized that the photo-sharing site combined with a photo printer can be an invaluable decorating resource.

I sift through Flickr on a regular basis for images to use as visuals for my blog posts. I use images for my blog posts only if I’ve gotten permission from the rights holder, and I credit all images I find. But as with most things related to the Web, it’s easy to get sidetracked with not-so-work-related search terms like, “kittens” and “vintage bicycles.” Through these bouts of procrastination, I’ve often found stunning photographs, so much so I’ve gotten in the habit of printing faves out and framing them. If a user offers the original resolution for download, don’t let that go to waste. Download, print, frame!

And if you’re wondering about copyright issues (after all, these aren’t my photos), the photos are being used by me for my own, private, noncommercial use. I’m not selling these things and not charging admission to my apartment, so I think I’m in the clear.

Obviously, photographers and others may feel quite differently about this, but it’s a thorny issue: If printing out an image on Flickr isn’t ok, what about Wi-Fi picture frames that stream images from Flickr and display them in your living room? What about Tivoing an episode of Lost and watching it later with friends? (I’ll be following up this post with another post, chock full of answers from legal experts, in the coming days.)

Of all the artwork I have in my studio apartment (there isn’t a bare wall in the house), my Flickr finds get the most attention. Best of all, they were practically free! I use a Kodak ESP7 AIO printer to ink my finds on various sizes of photo paper and frame them in inexpensive frames found at Urban Outfitters or Ikea. The only thing I pay for is ink, paper and frames — peanuts, in my opinion.

While a lot of the images I’ve found are from regular people like you and me, I’ve also found that the Flickr page of the Library of Congress is a wealth of vintage images that make for great decorating pieces. I’ve framed this little number in my kitchen and this one in my living room. Put in any search term and you’re guaranteed to find a fantastic photo with a story.

I’m fairly certain that printing and displaying, even for personal use, is not fair use. So you need get permission from the photographer before harvesting photos listed as All Rights Reserved (or ARR). Photos licensed under Creative Commons may or may not be fine to print out and use without asking, please have the courtesy of checking first.

Just because you can find it on the internet doesn’t mean it’s free for you to take–a sentiment I’m sure your bosses at the NYTimes would agree with.

Sonia, you should read and you should have advised reader to read any photo Website’s term of use policy for copyright and understand the copyright laws (previous post). The images are the property of the owner, covered by the copyright laws.

The Library of Congress’ Flickr Website has free images because the images are in the public domain, owned by the government for the people. They, not Flickr, grants free and fair use of the images.

For all other images, you, and anyone for the matter, owe the owner the right to offer you the image you want printed to their specifications, and if they want, charge. It’s their right against the theft (and that’s what you’re doing) of images by you and anyone doing what you recommend. It’s not just a courtesy, it’s ethical and legal. The right to print and display belongs to the owner, not you or anyone else.

With the entire NYT staff at your ready access, you should have at least contacted the legal folks to verify your post and your use of copyright images, and then say for certain either way. It’s the old adage about ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Just because you are using them for “private purposes” does not make what you are doing legal. You are still copying and displaying something that is someone else’s intellectual property. IANAL, but everything is copyrighted by the owner unless they’ve applied a different license to it (such as creative commons) and you do not have permission to print and display photos that did not originate with you unless they are properly licensed. The Commons on Flickr is a different story; there are no known copyright restrictions on those.

Part of the point of copyright is to protect the owner of the original work; if anyone were able to just download and print at will, then no one would make any money off their photos. Do you go to Getty and download whatever you like to display on your walls?

If you are so determined to use flickr as a free image resource, then at least filter your searches by creative commons (which is very easy to do) and use those. This is exactly why I restrict downloading to friends and family, and watermark all my public images. People like this are the same who download and email tons of photos because they’re “pretty” and then they get posted all over the internet, and nobody has a clue where they first came from.

This article should be taken down immediately. It is advising people to commit copyright infringement, which is a crime.

What everyone has said regarding All Rights Reserved vs Creative Commons is correct. You can print CC licensed photos, as long as you credit the creator (which I doubt you’re doing). If it says All Rights Reserved, then you’re stealing.

Sonia, you obviously had some doubt as to the legality of this, you should have talked to a copyright attorney when you were writing this article. You’re an irresponsible journalist.

I find it hard to believe that a court would find that making your own prints to hang on your wall as decor is fair use under the Copyright Act.

From the U.S. Copyright Act (which, like the photographs posted by the LoC on Flickr, is in the public domain):

“Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.”

As far as I’m concerned making a copy of a photograph large enough to use as decor and hanging it on your wall not only isn’t a use anticipated by the Act, it also affects the market value of the work. And if any of mine were on your wall, I’d be happy to let you know what that market value is — in the form of an invoice. You might like to do the right thing and offer payment to those people whose copyrights you’ve infringed upon.

I am not going to address the copyright issues, which have already been pointed out by many commentators. I will not that many of the photographers whose work you are using would probably be thrilled to find that you’re using their work to decorate their home. Of course, some will not. So why not ask the photographer next time, or in the case of CC-licensed stuff, inform the photographer, that way the artist can be properly acknowledged for his or work artwork.

Downloading and printing privately held photographs (that troublesome little “all rights reserved” thing) is absolutely against copyright law. A photographer posting images on flickr or any other website does not allow you or anyone else to freely print and display them. It would only be ok for those few photographs which the photographer has clearly allowed as enabled for printing and in the creative commons. Shame on you and the NYT for even thinking this article is ok. It should be rescinded with apologies immediately.

I totally agree with other comments here. You’re totally taking advantage of a situation you shouldn’t be and there are major copyright issues. I would guess that most of the people that post images in original size don’t care much about copyrights, they’re just showing off their photos.

I’m guessing that most of the professional photographers (like me) who share photos on flickr upload low-res photos (mean you would get a lousy print quality of no benefit to you or me when printed) and/or watermark the photos.

Flickr does have copyright settings, and I would be real careful about which photos you’re nabbing for print. Even if you’re not reselling a photo, you’re basically doing the same thing as downloading illegally ripped music.

The “it’s just for personal use” argument doesn’t fly.

Of course, the difference here is that many amateur photographers are fairly unsophisticated about this and just want to show their photos by directly posting them (they weren’t ripped and burned like musc might be by a third party).

I have the option to print, blog and even view the full sizes of my photos on flickr disabled. The only ones who could view full sizes are my friends. And its mostly because of people that do what your doing. Taking peoples work and printing it, even if only for personal use without asking the photographer for permission. It takes a few seconds to send someone a flickr mail and ask if you may print it for personal use & I can bet most would be ok with it because you asked. I find it very disrespectful for one to just go searching a photo site & printing out photos they like to hang around their home just because they are there. Sure people will argue that “well if you dont want it being used dont post it on the net”, but seriously I take pictures because I enjoy sharing my work with others & because its fun & sure there are risks of putting them online if you do not block certain things or watermark your photos, but just because they are there on the net doesnt mean you should disrespect that artists work by just taking it without permission or credit. Flickr is not a photo buffet for your interior design needs, gain some respect and ask the owners for permission!

That’s the goofiest interpretation of copyright law I’ve ever heard of. I can’t believe a newspaper would print such nonsense. Would you apply the same interpretation to music files and videos. I don’t think the publishers would.

“Getting Smart About Personal Technology?” Perhaps you and your employers should get smart about copyright law before spreading misinformation to the readers of NYTimes.com. If someone uses an image that is registered and the artist discovers it, they could end up owing the artist a cool $150,000.

I can’t possibly wrap my mind around this – Sonia, you owe an email to every single photographer whose photograph you have stolen from Flickr. You need to ask for permission AND offer compensation!

Many of us on flickr are professional artists and photographers, doing our best to get our work out there and make a living. I can’t believe, in this economy, you would take $$$ out of people’s pockets. This is absolutely outrageous and a retraction is in order.

I agree with Susan Sabo, the word is SHAMEFUL. I would never have expected this from the New York Times.

you CANNOT download it and use it EVEN for personal use. Serious copyright infringement and if any photographer finds out, you are liable for a lawsuit (that have been settled to photographer’s advantage before, do all the time).

All my flickr images are “Non- No copyrights” so you have to read before you give advice. Seriously uninformed article.

I don’t understand what’s the big brew Ha ha. What is the difference between displaying the image, that someone posted for you to look at, on your computer screen or on youro wall. Seems pretty much the same to me. Am I breaking some sort of copyright law by saving said picture as a desktop background? There are ways for people to watermark or block full pixel images so let the artists go that route.

What's Next

About

Gadgetwise is a blog about everything related to buying and using tech products. From figuring out which gadget to buy and how to get the best deal on it to configuring it once it’s out of the box, Gadgetwise offers a mix of information, analysis and opinion to help you get the most out of your personal tech.